Target Dot

[JG52Krupi]

I made i quick post about this in furbs beta patch bug thread but I think this topic needs a bit more of an open discussion.

The dot markers are starting to annoy me a bit. In my opinion they appear at far too long a distance for ground units, especially ships and they also show through the clouds and land.

For aircraft it would be nice if they shrunk the closer you got rather than just disappearing, they also hinder aircraft type spotting from certain distances, due to there size they cover the target!

Anybody else think they should slowly reduce in size depending on how close you get to the aircraft or does anyone else have a good idea to replace the current design?

Discuss!

BTW love the new patch

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

I made i quick post about this in furbs beta patch bug thread but I think this topic needs a bit more of an open discussion.

The dot markers are starting to annoy me a bit. In my opinion they appear at far too long a distance for ground units, especially ships and they also show through the clouds and land.

For aircraft it would be nice if they shrunk the closer you got rather than just disappearing, they also hinder aircraft type spotting from certain distances, due to there size they cover the target!

Anybody else think they should slowly reduce in size depending on how close you get to the aircraft or does anyone else have a good idea to replace the current design?

Discuss!

BTW love the new patch

I liked your suggestions, and MG need to solve the "x-ray" thing fast... It's the major graphic bug now.

[SEE]

For the first time last night I was able to spot very low flying ac against terrain and Sea whilst maintaining a respectable altitude advantage, in that respect the new dot markers worked well for me.

Spotting and identifying ac at altitude/longer distances was very confusing and more diffficult. I heard other players (on ventrillo) discussing and commenting on this aspect of the patch (but were positive in every other respect).

I don't see the need for dot markers in any form for ground units and they should not be visible through clouds - that would help.

[steppie]

Like these
ship that you see through the ground


and aircraft



this sucks

[pupo162]

flying online i had one issue, i was behnd a plane and he suddenly disappeared in the idstance. and reappeared after he turned into me. We were probably 4- 5 km appart, in the limit to see a plane.

[SNAFU]

Originally Posted by steppie

Like these
ship that you see through the ground


and aircraft



this sucks

I had this since the first release. At least some consistency.

[PissyChrissy]

Here's the problem i have with the floating target dots...


Here the cluster of dots looks like they could be the same range as they are all identical in size in colour.


But here, we see that the dots are in fact at various ranges - 1km intervals.

I'm sorry, but an aircraft that is 4km away is not going to look identical to the same aircraft that's 8km away.

I find these dots kill the immersiveness. They're like these little artificial sprites floating around in an otherwise realistic looking 3D environment. They need to go.

And besides the aesthetics, these dots make it unrealistically easy to detect targets. It's almost like having a radar. It means you don't have to carefully scan for enemy planes in the distance, and it likewise makes it difficult to sneak up on people.

I think the option should be there to turn those off completely.


[EDIT]

Sorry, i guess my pictures came out a little small.

Here's a zoomed in view. Those aircraft are 4km, 5km, 6km, 7km and 8km away respectively from right to left. Yet they all appear to be relatively the same size an colour because of these artificial looking target dots. There's no way that the 4km plane and the 8km plane should look the same like that.

[ATAG_Doc]

For me personally I like it as real as you can get.

I saw a post from someone (I think it was you Krupi) that said most of the action is on the deck...that is terrible and totally ruins it for me - a beat down - nails on a chalkboard - whatever you want to call it. Perhaps if one flew knowing their life really depended on them surviving it would be different. Perhaps if you die during the mission you're out until next mission. I donno.

I like the idea you have though. But I will always favor what ever is most realistic as can be achieved in this sim.

Let me edit this up a bit. To be honest if I could fly the 1940 channel map and I knew there were 50, 60, 70+ others on the map and it was a free hunt and I didn't know where the others were and I had to l@@k for them the entire time knowing I was burning precious fuel and not seeing anyone that would be fine with me. That's the truth. That way when you are lucky to spot the enemy and shoot them down without them even knowing you were around that would be a real thrill.

[Warhound]

Originally Posted by PissyChrissy

I find these dots kill the immersiveness. They're like these little artificial sprites floating around in an otherwise realistic looking 3D environment. They need to go.

And besides the aesthetics, these dots make it unrealistically easy to detect targets. It's almost like having a radar. It means you don't have to carefully scan for enemy planes in the distance, and it likewise makes it difficult to sneak up on people.

This is pretty much my opinion ..dots completely kill immersion. I like to find my targets, not have them light up from miles away as if they were lightbulbs.
To see a ship in the distance with a dot over it as large as it's whole midsection makes me wonder what it is, some huge beachball the ship inflated?...just doesn't work for me.
Things show up around Radars, AA etc aswell which makes targethunting alot less fun.
Same for dots on planes, really don't see the need to have them unrealistically highlighted like that. Removes the need for SA completely and imho that's what icons are for if people feel the need.

In short : Say NO to dots!

[PissyChrissy]

....couldn't agree more. They have to go. Period. (no pun intended)